memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha talk:Resource policy/Research policy archive
Background info So, when did we change to: :Picard served on the USS Reliant. ( ) ::The information about his USS ''Reliant service is derived from a part of the script not included in the episode.'' when before, we simply wrote: :MAIN TEXT ::According to unaired parts of the script, Picard served on the USS ''Reliant.'' I'm absolutely against making this a policy, or even generally allowing it as a rule of thumb - it completely changes the way background information is included in articles, and it does so for apparently no good reason. What's suddenly wrong with adding non-"valid" information (and even this draft acknowledges that this is the case) as background information. Why should we start adding it in the main text, just to back-pedal in the next sentence? This makes no sense, and to say it again, this is not what has been done in the past... -- Cid Highwind 21:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC) :Sorry, i thought that was how the reliant reference stood in the article now -- I was simply trying to come up with an example of a non-episode reference that is included as (valid? restricted?) part of the article body, but necessitated being explained in a background note. :I think I need to come up with a better example of a reference that is allowable in an article body, but is required to be clarified since it isnt completely clear from an examination of the episode. -- Captain M.K.B. 21:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC) If it is, it probably is an oversight that should be corrected. Although I can't cite specific talk pages, I remember that we discussed, more than once, ways to include such information - and if I'm not mistaken, the conclusion always was to put that information to background paragraphs/sections instead of the main body. -- Cid Highwind 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC) :Oh, I wouldn't doubt your sincerity on that Cid, I do remember when the reference was added it was questioned -- I simply hadn't yet noticed it was removed/declared invalid. :Regardless, that "script information" issue, isn't my thrust here -- it was just an example i chose off the top of my head -- so Im sorry I picked something you obviously feel so strongly about, to think i was trying to change the way the information gets treated. You can calm down about that! :I think I've found better examples of valid information that can't be directly divined from an episode, requiring secondary research -- dedication plaques listing class names and registries. We recognize those as valid in our articles, except when contradicted, but they arent always visible in on-screen analysis -- in each case we have photos or prints of the art that should be cited. People need to cite how they saw the plaque -- did Okuda provide it in the Encyclopedia? Or was it set photography provided to us my Mike Sussman. Either way, the fact that we got the information from a source other than the episode should be clarified. Was it Sussman's photo? A photo of the set in Starlog? A print of Okuda's art in the Encyclopedia or The Art of Star Trek. Inquiring minds want to know! :) -- Captain M.K.B. 21:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC) ::Cid is correct; this approach is not a smart move. The current canon policy provides for a reasoned approach to dealing with what is deemed here "secondary research". Using the example of the dedication plaques, it is just included if a better view exists of what is clearly seen in the episode. If it is not clearly seen, it becomes background information (typically). This mirrors the episode, which should be our primary focus. By including all the bits and pieces in this "Research policy" into something of significance within Memory Alpha, we can all forget about this site being as authoritative as the Encyclopedia. It'll just turn into a fan site with all kinds of tangents everywhere. This type of approach will - no kidding - spell an end for Memory Alpha as a respected site for verifiable information about the episodes and the universe those episodes show. Aholland 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC) :Well, you've been giving me a hard time trying to figure out how to prove to you that information on the site shouldn't be removed. I fell that if you continue removing information that is accurate to the filming, but simply lacks a citation that you personally find feasible, you are really little more than a vandal. :Don't confuse this with the canon policy, that is a different animal. The research policy is to help us expand on how we -- basically clearing that the allowable data from the dedication plaque we can't see in the episode, but can see on a behind-the-scene photo or print, can be cited and sourced in an accurate manner.. isn't that what you've been doing.. asking people to reliably provide sources for how the data originates from the filming but isn't in the episode? -- Captain M.K.B. 04:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC) ::Cite sources, absolutely. Cite sources permitted by policy, absolutely. Use novels, comics, websites, games - absolutely not. Note that your proposed Research Policy confuses its permitted sources of data with the Canon policy itself. You might try reading it again if you don't see what I mean. ::As to being a vandal, if you are truly making that comment as regards my activities here, please provide specifics. I feel you are making personal attacks on me, and I do not appreciate it. This should not be a personal issue, it should be exclusively one of direction for the site. Aholland 04:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Fair use If this project starts to use published works (called secondary resources here) more than it does now, the question of "fair use" regarding these items has to be discussed. This just occured to me while editing the Star Trek: Star Charts article which now contains a table with all information regarding "planetary classification" from that book (info that is additionally spread across several "Class X" articles). One, though not the only, question to decide whether something constitutes "fair use" is: "Does using something (image, text, ...) which is copyrighted take away from possible profit of the copyright owner?" If it does, it most probably is not fair use. The Star Charts info mentioned above seems to be a borderline case that could probably be construed as being "fair use" (because people are buying that book for the cool maps and graphics, not the 3 page classification listing). However, putting up a policy that allows to use, for example, the Encyclopedia not only for the occasional spelling correction but to lift complete articles or at least major points of information such as otherwise unknown starship classes and registries might easily cross that line in the long run. -- Cid Highwind 13:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC) :I agree that the should stand we should not be copying text or images directly from any commercially or privately published resource without the permission of the author. :The language of the research policy should be made to state that we are attempting to gather facts and restate them here, not "lift" passages, articles, or whatever, from an original author. I believe this could be tied in to policy recommendations that specify how we should conduct ourselves when quoting someone -- for example, Bob Justman was interviewed for the Star Trek Encyclopedia, and several quotes attributed to him are in the book. Perhaps we should specify whether we should or shouldn't directly quote him, but note that we have proof (through the Encyclopedia) that he said something along those lines. :The research policy in this case is not to plagiarize or abuse the Encyclopedia as a resource, but to structure a citation in a background note that Okuda or Justman or whoever did in fact reveal something in that book. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC) ::The research policy wouldn't apply much to the Star Trek: Star Charts info -- there is very little information available in that book itself about how the information in that book relates to onscreen information. Therefore, by researching that volume, we only find that, while some info in the book is studio-derived, there is not much in the book that attests to "this is what they were using when they produced the episode". A lack of such a certification means that, the book is non-canon, and reproducing a majority of the information in there is unnecessary to this site, as well as being disallowable from a POV and canon viewpoint. ::We could probably note that planetary classes seen onscreen were also mentioned in the book (probably with a link rather than extensive text as seen in some articles now), and that the book at least ties in with onscreen info because of its source with studio affiliated writers, but there isn't much correlation between the two -- we should probably make only a concise list of the planetary classes presented in that book -- without copying their lists of overly technical data (a word-for-word copy would be out of the question. The information from planetary classification has seemed extraneous in various places -- its been moved more times than i could count. probably time to drop it completely). -- Captain M.K.B. 15:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Need for Policy At All? Given the move and consolidation of the discussion of this proposed policy I wanted to state my (probably already known) opinions on it. :This policy is at best unneeded and at worst misleading as to its nature and goals, contradictory (internally and with other policies), and not in keeping with the Memory Alpha stated objective of being "the most definitive, accurate, and accessible encyclopedia and reference for everything related to Star Trek". :All of the following (as relate to Trek) would be expressly and fully permitted as the bases of information in articles under this draft policy, but would be forbidden under existing policies and practices: characters and events from comic books; characters and events from novels; names, locations, and background information from every game ever made; information from any website that contains even "observations" about Trek. There is some attempt to reconcile the draft with the , but the examples given would expressly permit information only available in - say - a comic book to be the basis for claims in the body of the article. :There is no need for this at all. What is permitted in an article is addressed in current policy; what has to be put into a background section is addressed in current policy; when non-episode information can nonetheless form the basis for an article is addressed in current policy. :Adding a contradictory policy that fundamentally shifts the focus of Memory Alpha further and further away from the episodes as presented to viewers is not in the best interests of the site's archivists or readers. It should be removed from consideration as yet another policy people would have to follow. Aholland 12:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC) ::I can only agree with all of the above... Nothing more to say ;) -- Cid Highwind 12:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :::Yes, it is a good example of puppetry, isn't it. ;) -- Captain M.K.B. 14:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC) I note that this text is still being played with and wanted to reiterate: Memory Alpha does not need and would not benefit from this policy in its current form for reasons stated at length above. Aholland 12:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)